JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS A CRIMINAL, PART 3

THE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI JOKE ! HAVE YOU HEARD IT BEFORE ?

Did I tell you the joke of this Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (judge of the Court of Appeal, Malaysia ) who APPROVED TWO CONTRADICTING ORDERS AND DID NOT KNOW THAT IN SO DOING SHE SCREWED UP HER FRIENDS(the respondents) WHO SHE SET OUT TO HELP? This is deliciously hilarious ! WORST THAN THAT it is a disgrace for the reputation of Malaysia; a most senior Judge of the High Court of Malaysia, who can’t count the number of fingers on one hand, AND NOW A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.

I have already set out the facts underpinning THIS JOKE, that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali FIRST APPROVED AN ORDER TO THE RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS FOR AN ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; and when Petitioner paid up in full and in time the Rm.60,000 pursuant to the court order made by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; 3rd respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (an ethnic Jew with a Chinese name) made a 2nd application (WHILE THE FIRST ORDER FOR COSTS IS STILL “ALIVE”) FOR STRIKING OUT OF SAID PETITION.

I had earlier, already discussed that these 2 contradicting orders are like two “like poles” of two magnets, they repel each other. I will now go on to discuss the hilariously & “gawfawing” funny side of the LEGAL IGNORANCE & TOTAL LACK OF LEGAL LEARNING OF THIS JUDGE (judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali). Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had through out the court process of my wife’s petition rendered pro-active & totally partisan assistance both legal & mostly illegal, in favour of the respondents.

TO CUT A LONG STORY SHORT; what is the legal effect of this Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali approving 2 contradicting court orders; and WHAT HAS THIS GOOF-UP ! to do with the legal position of the respondents’ & Petitioner’s cases ?

The first court order that was approved by this Judge is the Order for security for costs of Rm.60,000 & paid by Petitioner, The second court order that was made by this judge was made AFTER RESPONDENTS HAD taken into possession Petitioner’s payment of Rm.60,000. That being the facts of the circumstances PRIOR to Judge approving the second court order, it means that the 2nd court order was made in spite of & while THE 1ST COURT ORDER IS STILL ALIVE & ACTIVE. Therefore, what is the legal effect that bears on the legal rights of the respondents & the Petitioner ? THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT I WILL SUBMIT ON FROM THIS POINT.

In Equity, the maxim is “first in time prevails over all other later comers”; this maxim combined with the de facto acknowledgement by the actual receipt by the respondents of said Rm.60,000 paid by petitioner, UNDERPINS THE TRUE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. It must be borne in mind that at all times, neither petitioner nor respondents ever applied to court to set aside the order for security for costs; that being the case, respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (the Jew) in legal terms, acknowledges, by acceptance of said Petitioner’s payment of the security for costs, THAT THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION AND THAT ON PAYMENT OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, THERE WILL BE A TRIAL OF THE ISSUES.

The rationale as set out herein STILL PREVAILS TODAY; not withstanding the assumption accepted blindly & in ignorance by ALL THE COUNSELS (without exception) & the judge, Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, that upon approval by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of Stephen Lim’s application for striking out, such order for striking out ”AUTOMATICALLY” made the earlier order FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS void; This was and still is the MISTAKE and totally wrong assumption as I will submit herein. It is ridiculous that all 5 lawyers & a senior Judge of the High Court of Malaysia do not yet understand that the 2 contradicting court orders that were awarded by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali are still “ALIVE & KICKING”, BECAUSE NEITHER COURT ORDERS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; and since the orders are contradicting THEY cancelled each other out (2-2=0)
That being the case, the legal positions of the respective parties are locked into place in the manner herein submitted. Their respective legal rights can best be illustrated by two cars racing each other, but both cars can only travel at the CONSTANT SPEED of 60miles/hour, only the car that carries the SECURITY FOR COSTS started the race one hour ahead of the car that carried THE STRIKE OUT ORDER. That being the case the FIRST CAR HAS NO NEED TO OVER TAKE because it is always ahead in all circumstances; BUT THE 2ND CAR(for strike out) has to over take the 1st car to win; therefore, unless the 2nd car over takes the 1st car; the race can only be won by the car with THE SECURITY FOR COSTS. That being the case it is the 2nd car that must set aside the order for security for costs TO SUCCEED; but since no COURT ORDER TO SET ASIDE the order for security for costs has yet been put in place by the respondents, PETITIONER HAS THE PRIOR RIGHT IN EQUITY & IN LAW TO ENFORCE HER RIGHT TO HAVE HER PETITION TRIED pursuant to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali FIRST COURT ORDER ordering security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 and duly paid by petitioner.

Having submitted above that while the 1st order for security for costs is still active & valid, respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban CANNOT ENFORCE JUDGE ZAINON’S ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT said petition (this ISSUE has already been argued earlier). The next issue that I will argue is the question, “Can the respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban NOW APPLY TO SET ASIDE THE order for SECURITY FOR COSTS ? This issue has already been argued earlier; Stephen Lim Cheng Ban CANNOT APPLY to set aside their order for security for costs because ‘that will be blowing hot & cold at the same time, and he will be BLOCKED BY THE PRINCIPLE IN EQUITY OF ESTOPPEL and also the equitable maxim of “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” and Stephen Lim having accepted the security for costs CANNOT SAY THAT HE COMES TO EQUITY WITH CLEAN HANDS. To put the argument in another way, for Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to apply to set aside their order for security for costs, Stephen Lim will now have to state that Petitioner’s petition SHOW NO CAUSE OF ACTION; and that will be blowing hot & cold at the same time, and IS CAUSE FOR INVOKING THE DEFENSE OF ESTOPPEL.

Having said that it is correct to state that the 1st ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS CANNOT BE SET ASIDE BY RESPONDENTS. The being the case Petitioner can go on and enforce her part of the ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS and to enforce her right to a trial of the petition; while respondents will NEED TO FIRST SET ASIDE THEIR ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, and that as argued earlier they cannot do, therefore, their Order for striking out said petition IS EMPTY VESSAL, it cannot be enforced because the order for security for costs is the barrier THAT BLOCKS (prevents) Stephen Lim Cheng Ban from enforcing his order for striking out said petition.

We come now to the second part of my submission, THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S COURT ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION HAS NO VALUE TO THE RESPONDENTS; on the basis of my submission herein. Please bear in mind that both orders made by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali were made pursuant to applications made ONLY by Respondents alone (that in and of itself is another JOKE); and judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali APPROVED BOTH TO THE SAME APPLICANTS (this is the joke part). AT THIS POINT I WANT TO REMIND MY READERS THAT BOTH COURT ORDERS ARE ALIVE & STILL KICKING. Therefore how do you work out the respective legal rights of the RIVAL PARTIES ? THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT I WILL SUBMIT ON.

The issue that I have to decide is, WHAT IF RESPONDENTS NOW GO ON TO APPLY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER THAT WAS APPEOVED TO RESPONDENTS FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS ? If the order for security for costs can be set aside then only the order “to strike out remains and respondents will not have the problem of two conflicting orders. AT THIS POINT THIS ISSUE IS THE DELICIOUS PART OF THE DISCUSSION,……. Respondents cannot do that, and their ACTIONS TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER APPROVED TO THEM IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY BOTH LAW & EQUITY, on the basis submitted herein. I have said earlier that both court orders APPROVED TO RESPONDENTS BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ARE STILL ALIVE & KICKING. That being the case respondents ARE ESTOPPED FROM APPLYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS BECAUSE THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS APPROVED TO RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO THEIR OWN APPLICATION; hence having, by implication, admitted in their application for security for costs THAT A TRIAL WILL FOLLOW UPON PAYMENT OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, 3rd Respondent cannot now GO BEFORE THE COURT TO SAY THAT PETITION HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION. Therefore, the 2 court orders that were approved by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali remains “ALIVE & STILL KICKING”, ONLY IT IS TOO BAD FOR RESPONDENTS THAT THEIR ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT IS unenforceable.

That being the case, I submit that Petitioner has a right to apply for an order to enter a default judgment because there is A LAPSE OF 8 YEARS, FROM THE TIME LIMITED FOR FILING A DEFENSE OR RESPONSE, and adding to that is the fact that 1st RESPONDENT COMPANY had abandoned their defense 8 years ago when their representive, who was their secretary, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, FAILED TO RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER’S CHARGE MADE AGAINST HIM THAT HE HAD PERJURED; after that charge made against him Mr Kwong Sea Yoon did not ever again participate in these proceedings. It is petitioner’s submission that 1st respondent’s abandonment of their defense and the lapse of 8 years, gives petitioner the right to enter DEFAULT JUDGMENT. It is then up to respondents to apply to set it aside. THIS IS THE ONLY FAIR & JUST COURSE OF ACTION.